[rpd] AFPUB-2020-GEN-003-DRAFT01 - Simple PDP Update - chairs decision

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

(subject changed to match the list discussion)

 

Hi AK, Moses, all,

 

I’ve a terribly busy day, so I will respond later on each proposal (and other pending emails), but here going for the first one.

 

I will like to have your responses to the questions below, and also one of them from the staff. This is needed not only to understand your inputs, but also to make sure that a new possible version of the proposal is really catching everything correctly.

 

When you say “ there is strong opposition”, do you mean that you’re accepting those points as valid objections? I understand that your response here is valid for all the proposals, please confirm if otherwise. If your points for each proposal are not all them “valid-objections”, the authors need to understand what are you taking as valid objection and what not, so we can proceed. Note that in “rough consensus” we can’t talk about “strong opossition”, but instead you should judge what is a valid-objection and what not (this is what you call “irrelevant objections”, but is not clear if when the authors or the community refute an objection, you’re taking it as valid or irrelevant and it is a *key* question).
 
“Oppose the policy because of the way the consensus is reached. This proposal proposes that the consensus be reached through a balance of the mailing list/forum and not at the PPM. This endangers fair consensus and hijacks the policymaking process. Based on experience, it is during the PPM that most community members focus on policies.”
 

Actually, the chairs (at least previous chairs), always indicated that they *take the inputs from the list as part of the consensus*. I recall that you also stated that in Luanda or even in the list. I will need to find that if you don’t recall it.

 

By the way, I just found this in the Luanda video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5KebcFzUU0&t=8m

 

Anyway, can you confirm if you take the inputs in the list as part of the consensus-decision?

 

Could also previous co-chairs confirm that?

 
“Issues around how the chairs should drop proposals”
 

The actual CPM states “A draft policy can be withdrawn by the author(s) by sending a notification to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list.” while the proposal is using the *SAME* but with a shorter wording “A DPP can be withdrawn by the author(s) by sending a notification to the RPD List”.

 

Based on that, if the proposal is not changing what we are doing already, how this can be a valid-objection, what is your suggestion or what was the community suggestion?

 

 
“Trust in the mailing list: Some strongly believe that anonymous contribution should be allowed while some believes it should not”
 

This is the actual way we use. As we don’t count objections, but only valid vs non-valid, anonymous participation is irrelevant. If an anonymous participant say something against a proposal and it is true, and it is not addressed by the authors or the community, never mind it is anonymous *it is a valid objection*.

 

So how it can be a valid-objection? The ICP-2 and the bylaws talk about an open participantion. Based on that, what alternative we have?

 

Please see your own words in Luanda:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5KebcFzUU0&t=13m50s

 
“Issues around having more than 1 PPM per year and Online PPM because of volunteer burnout. We are all volunteers and it’s a night job for us. More PPMs mean more time to volunteer and more chances for burnouts”
 

In the open mic you stated that the problem was contradiction with bylaws

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7EJploR38c&t=3h33m44s.

 

The impact analysis mention that. I will like to double check with Madhvi/staff if they still believe that observation from them is correct, because:
The bylaws 11.2 state “at least once a year” but we have already done for many years 2 PPMs per year.
This staff observation is in the section “AFRINIC staff clarification request”, which is only “clarification” not something that the staff is warning the community as *take care this is a problematic thing*.
Unfortunatelly the “Summary” also say that “will be in contradiction of the bylaws in terms of the number of PPMs held by AFRINIC per year”. So, can please the staff clarify this? What is their understanding of “at least”? Are we contradicting the bylaws, because the PDP already talks about “and the bi-annual AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings”.
 

And of course, if we have more PPMs, is not true that this is a problem for volunteers. They idea is that instead of spending 2 days in 10 proposals, you will focuss and have less proposals in half of the time, for example one specific PPM for Inter-RIR, so you are using the same time but split in different meetings. Note also that the proposal is not “mandating” any number of meetings, just saying that *if neccesary* they can be done. It is just making explicit and being tranparent about something that is *actually the case* the board can call already for 1, 2, 3, 4 or 10 PPMs as they believe is best for the community. So clearly not a valid objection.

 

Moreover, as the proposal explicitly allows to take decisions in the list when the proposal has been already been presented and thru a new version there are no further objections, then it is actually *saving* time to all the community.

 

In the open mic, you explained that: “it is a major objection”. How come?

 

 
“Some members of the Community thinks only burning or polarizing issues should be brought to the PPM”
 

This will be againt consensus-based bottom-up process as defined by ICP-2 and bylaws. If someone propose a bad idea, it is up to the community to not-reach consesus based on valid objections (justified objections), not “I don’t like it”.

 

Again this is what we have today, so if the proposal is not changing that, it can’t be a valid-objection.

 

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 21/9/20 2:15, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> escribió:

 


Dear PDWG Members,

 Please find below a summary for each of the proposal discussed during the just concluded online policy meeting of AFRINIC 32  

1.       Simple PDP Update 

This policy defines consensus. It also proposes that a policy discussed at the PPM does not need to come back for another PPM for the Co-chairs to arrive at a decision. This can help in streamlining the work during the PPM and encourages people to use the mailing list. 

There were lots of irrelevant objections on the mailing list such as someone registering many emails. We believe that this does not matter because rough consensus is not about numbers but quality objections.

However, there is strong opposition to this policy based on the following: 

a.                   Oppose the policy because of the way the consensus is reached. This proposal proposes that the consensus be reached through a balance of the mailing list/forum and not at the PPM. This endangers fair consensus and hijacks the policymaking process. Based on experience, it is during the PPM that most community members focus on policies. 

b.                  Issues around how the chairs should drop proposals.

c.                   Trust in the mailing list: Some strongly believe that anonymous contribution should be allowed while some believes it should not.

d.                  Issues around having more than 1 PPM per year and Online PPM because of volunteer burnout. We are all volunteers and it’s a night job for us. More PPMs mean more time to volunteer and more chances for burnouts 

e.                  Some members of the Community thinks only burning or polarizing issues should be brought to the PPM.

Chairs Decision:   No Consensus

 

 

2.       PDP Working Group 

This proposal aims at allowing most of the decisions including chair elections to be determined via consensus.  This can be reasonable when the community has the same goal. However, there were a number of objections to it. These are:

a.                   Entrusting the WG to make their decisions by consensus and the appointment of their co-chairs by consensus do not make sense and is only utopic.

b.                  People are not policy proposals, and thus choosing by consensus is splitting hairs with the election process we already have. Save the consensus for the proposals, and the election for people.

c.                   Consensus may even take months, and this can’t fly when we want to put people in the vacant roles.

d.                  Co-chairs should not have a hand in the consensus, but only sit back and let the community decide for themselves. Additionally, the consensus process is not feasible with a deadline.

e.                  Focus on polishing the current electoral process instead of complicating other untested forms of “election”.

f.                    The current status quo’s election should be the only option in choosing for the roles, and not through less transparent means.

g.                   Board would be interfering too much on issues that deal with PDP

Chairs Decision:    No Consensus

 

3.       Chairs Election Process 

This proposal aims at introducing an online voting system for the Co-Chairs election. The following are the opposition to this proposal. 

a.                   This policy reduces participation. Equal representation is violated because the board has unprecedented power. 

b.                  There is also not enough information on the logistics of the vote (e-voting).

c.                   There is a contradiction on when the term ends during the meeting. “The term ends during the first PPM corresponding to the end of the term for which they were appointed” is not clear enough, and “A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the PPM and no later than the last day of the PPM as determined by mutual agreement of the current Chair and the new Chair” contradicts each other.

d.                  Gender restriction on 3.3.1.3 , some community members argue it is impractical and maybe even unfair if we force both chairs to have different genders.

e.                  Issues around which voter's register should be adopted 

Chairs Decision: No Consensus

 

4.       Board Prerogatives 

This proposal aims at clarifying how the board and the PDWG  works. However, there were a few oppositions to this proposal except for a specific section.  

a.                   It seems like a piecemeal approach to dealing with issues. 

b.                  Opposition to the section below

“As an exception of the preceding paragraph, in the absence of elections processes for aspects related to the PDP (co-chairs, appeal committee), those aspects will be still handled by the board in consultation with the community. However, this is also a temporary measure and also specific draft policy proposals should be introduced for that”. The authors agreed to remove the above section hence

Chairs Decision: Consensus provided the above section is removed 

 

5.       Policy Compliance Dashboard

The policy proposal seeks to provide a framework or a policy compliance dashboard be developed by AFRINIC and incorporated in myAFRINIC (and future member’s communication platforms).  It will allow a periodic review of the policy compliance status of each member. It will also enable members to receive automated notifications for any issue. Staff will receive repeated warnings of lack of compliance or severe violations enshrined in the CPM. However, there are several oppositions to this proposal, such as:

a.                   This policy seems to be redundant of the status quo as violations are already checked and processed by the human staff.

b.                  There is already an existing system of guidelines on keeping track of the violations of members.

c.                   The policy is not binding and does not enforce members actually to follow the rules and not violate policies. 

d.                  Ignorance could be a convenient excuse for violations because one could claim that they never got notified about their violations.

e.                  There is no comprehensive system on how the board should take proper actions once members violate policies, nor does it give guidelines based on the severity of the violations.

f.                    This policy takes away resources that could be used for more beneficial pursuits to AFRINIC for something existing in the system.

g.                   It an administrative  process, and this should be left to staff

Chairs Decision:  NO rough Consensus

 

6.       Abuse Contact Update 

The proposal makes it mandatory for AFRINIC to include in each resource registration, a contact where network abuse from users of those resources will be reported.  The proposal whois DB attribute (abuse-c) to be used to publish abuse public contact information. There’s also a process to ensure that the recipient must receive abuse report and that contacts are validated by AFRINIC regularly. However, there some opposition to the proposal there are:

a.                   Staff analysis on how it affects legacy holder not conclusive  (not sure why this should affect legacy holders) 

b.                  The proposal doesn’t state what will be the consequences of one member fails to comply. Why are we creating the abuse contact when there is no consequence for not providing the abuse contact 

c.                   Abuse contact email and issues with GDPR concerning the whois database

d.                  No proper definition of the term Abuse

e.                  To force members to reply to their abuse email is not in the scope of AFRINIC.

Chairs Decision: No rough consensus 

 

7.       RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space

The proposal instructs AFRINIC to create ROAs for all unallocated and unassigned address space under its control. This will enable networks performing RPKI-based BGP Origin Validation to easily reject all the bogon announcements covering resources managed by AFRINIC. However, there are many oppositions such as: 

a.                   Allowing resource holders to create AS0/ ROA will lead to an increase of even more invalid prefixes in the routing table.

b.                  Revocation time of AS0 state, and the time for new allocation doesn’t match. 

c.                   Other RIRs don’t have a similar the policy therefore, it can not be effective

d.                  This will become a uniform policy if it is not globally implemented, which causes additional stress. 

e.                  Validity period:   if members decide to implement it, is it not better to recover the space if it is kept unused for too long?

f.                    How do we revoke the ROA? How long does it take to revoke it (chain/ refreshing )?

g.                   What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues a ROA for an address in error?

h.                  It also might affect the neighbours and involves monitoring of unallocated spaces.

i.                     Possibility of it being used against a member who is yet to pay dues.

Suggestions were made to improve the policy such as 

a)                  The automatic creation of AS0 ROAs should be limited to space that has never been allocated by an RIR or part of a legacy allocation.

b)                  AFRINIC should require the explicit consent of the previous holder to issue AS0 ROAs in respect of re-claimed, returned, etc, space.

c)                   Any ROAs issued under this policy should be issued and published in a way that makes it operationally easy for a relying party to ignore them (probably by issuing under a separate TA).

d)                  The proposal should include the clause “as used in APNIC as to dues not paid on time.”

Chairs Decision: No consensus

 

8.       IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)

The proposal puts in place a mechanism to transfer IPv4 and (some ASN) resources between AFRINIC and other RIRs and between AFRINIC members/entities. Some conditions are attached to the source and recipient based on need and disclosure made. The inter-RIR transfers will be suspended if the number of outgoing IPv4 addresses exceeds the incoming ones for six consecutive months. However, there are oppositions to it

a.                   ASN Transfer is not necessary

b.                  Issue of board inferring: no board in all of the five RIRs have ever been involved in deciding a transfer or allocating IP address. It is not the board's responsibility.

c.                   Suspending clause with no reinstalling clause. This mainly makes the policy potentially invalid. 

Chairs Decision: No consensus.

 

9.       AFRINIC Number Resource Transfer

a.                   Not realistic for one-way inter RIR resource transfer as it has to be reciprocal. One way would never happen as only global resources can come in and go out 

b.                  It would be difficult for the recipient to follow the rules of AFRINIC if they are not in the African region.

c.                   No need for ASN transfer. If one is moving regions and doesn't have an ASN in the new region, it can request and receive from the local RIRs

d.                  Additional attributes create none-operational complexity in the whois database.

Chairs Decision: No consensus.

 

10.   Resource Transfer Policy

This proposal aims to introduce Inter RIR transfer. However, it has the following opposition 

a.                   Issues with Legacy holder transfer is potentially considered none-reciprocal by ARIN

b.                  Potential abuse of AFRINIC free pool without the time limit of receiving an allocation from AFRINIC.

Chairs Decision: The proposal is the least contested of all the 3 competing proposals. However because of the community’s desire and clear expression for the  need for an Inter RIR transfer, we, the Co-chairs, believe that in the interest of the community we should focus on a proposal rather than several similar ones. This desire was clearly expressed at the AFRINIC 31 meeting in Angola. Therefore, We suggest that the authors of this proposal make the following amendments: 

·         5.7.3.2  Source entities are not eligible to receive further IPv4 allocations or assignments from AFRINIC for 12 months period after the transfer.

·         5.7.4.3. Transferred legacy resources will still be regarded as legacy resources.

Chairs Decision: Provided that the above are amended, the decisions is Rough Consensus is achieved             

 

Based on the above, The updated version of the follow proposal which achieved rough consensus would be posted on the PDWG website 

1.       Board Prerogatives 

2.       Resource Transfer Policy

Therefore, these two policies are now on last call. 


Co-Chair 

PDWG

 

Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal

 

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd 



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200921/8defc26c/attachment-0001.html>